Options
A new international competition format
Recently on DS, I think after Eng v San Marino, I voiced vociferous support for the romantic notion of all teams being equal and all having a chance to compete together in qualifying for the international blue riband tournaments. We have seen in times past when teams not used to going to Finals seize the opportunity to make their mark on the world stage and how much they enjoy the support of football purists worldwide.
Who would have predicted, for example, Croatia's magnificent rise to power mere months after the Balkans war at Euro 96? Or New Zealand being the only unbeaten team in South Africa? Or Trinidad and Tobago holding the Swedes to a 0-0 in 2006?
However, I have come to realise that, while it's all well and good having plucky underdogs occasionally making the odd ripple on the ocean of world soccer, having teams like San Marino, Moldova, the Faroes, Armenia, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein continually getting tonked 4, 5 and 9-0 isn't healthy. In fact it's decidedly unhealthy. Nearly 30,000 people have not bothered to come to Wembley tonight, adding insult to the Moldovans' injury.
So what's to be done? Well, the examples already exist, both in football and in both rugby codes. A three-tiered international setup (if not worldwide, at least in UEFA) should occur as such.
UEFA ELITE LEAGUE : Top 32 teams in Europe (initially finishing order in previous qualifying) compete in four qualifying groups of 8 teams. Top three in each group go through with a semi-final / final straight playoff for the fourth placed teams for the thirteenth place in years when the WC is held outside Europe. The bottom two in each group are relegated for the next qualifying competition to the:
UEFA CHALLENGE COMPETITION : Next 12 teams in Europe - a two yearly round robin competition with a single league. Top eight play a further mini tournament along the lines of the Confederations Cup to determine a winner and title holder, and also replace the relegated GOLD teams in the next qualifying competition. Bottom two are relegated to the:
UEFA INTERNATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP : Final 9 teams in Europe compete in a round robin league. Top two are promoted to the Challenge Competition. The top 4 will play their own mini tournament, possibly at the same event as the Challenge Competition (along the lines of Rugby 7s bowl, plate, shield etc) with a trophy and a title.
The reason for the (seemingly pointless) post-promotion mini-tournaments is to allow the minnow teams a summer event of their own and for them to get experience of winning trophies / competing in competitive knockout football. It would also be a moneyspinner, with three competitions three sponsors could get involved, including emerging market companies.
For an example on how this would work, let's use the last UEFA National Co-Efficient as a starting point (2011).
ELITE LEAGUE
Group A: Spain, England, Portugal, Czech Rep, Switzerland, Israel, Romania, Austria
Group B: Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Ireland, Turkey, Bosnia, Finland, Latvia
Group C: Germany, Croatia, Denmark, Ukraine, Norway, Hungary, Scotland, Northern Ireland
Group
Italy, Greece, France, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, Belarus
CHALLENGE COMPETITION:
Belgium, Bulgaria, Wales, Montenegro, Estonia, Armenia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Albania, Georgia, Cyprus, Moldova
INTERNATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP:
Iceland, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Faroe Islands, Malta, Andorra, San Marino, Gibraltar.
So what do you think? It would allow the smaller nations opportunities for competitive games with real rewards at the end, while pushing the middle teams (notice how Wales miss out on the Elite League in this example) to do better. It would also mean less empty stadiums, more meaningful international fixtures (as opposed to endless friendlies).
Feedback! Is it pie in the sky, or the answer to UEFA's bloated membership?
Who would have predicted, for example, Croatia's magnificent rise to power mere months after the Balkans war at Euro 96? Or New Zealand being the only unbeaten team in South Africa? Or Trinidad and Tobago holding the Swedes to a 0-0 in 2006?
However, I have come to realise that, while it's all well and good having plucky underdogs occasionally making the odd ripple on the ocean of world soccer, having teams like San Marino, Moldova, the Faroes, Armenia, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein continually getting tonked 4, 5 and 9-0 isn't healthy. In fact it's decidedly unhealthy. Nearly 30,000 people have not bothered to come to Wembley tonight, adding insult to the Moldovans' injury.
So what's to be done? Well, the examples already exist, both in football and in both rugby codes. A three-tiered international setup (if not worldwide, at least in UEFA) should occur as such.
UEFA ELITE LEAGUE : Top 32 teams in Europe (initially finishing order in previous qualifying) compete in four qualifying groups of 8 teams. Top three in each group go through with a semi-final / final straight playoff for the fourth placed teams for the thirteenth place in years when the WC is held outside Europe. The bottom two in each group are relegated for the next qualifying competition to the:
UEFA CHALLENGE COMPETITION : Next 12 teams in Europe - a two yearly round robin competition with a single league. Top eight play a further mini tournament along the lines of the Confederations Cup to determine a winner and title holder, and also replace the relegated GOLD teams in the next qualifying competition. Bottom two are relegated to the:
UEFA INTERNATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP : Final 9 teams in Europe compete in a round robin league. Top two are promoted to the Challenge Competition. The top 4 will play their own mini tournament, possibly at the same event as the Challenge Competition (along the lines of Rugby 7s bowl, plate, shield etc) with a trophy and a title.
The reason for the (seemingly pointless) post-promotion mini-tournaments is to allow the minnow teams a summer event of their own and for them to get experience of winning trophies / competing in competitive knockout football. It would also be a moneyspinner, with three competitions three sponsors could get involved, including emerging market companies.
For an example on how this would work, let's use the last UEFA National Co-Efficient as a starting point (2011).
ELITE LEAGUE
Group A: Spain, England, Portugal, Czech Rep, Switzerland, Israel, Romania, Austria
Group B: Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Ireland, Turkey, Bosnia, Finland, Latvia
Group C: Germany, Croatia, Denmark, Ukraine, Norway, Hungary, Scotland, Northern Ireland
Group
Italy, Greece, France, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, BelarusCHALLENGE COMPETITION:
Belgium, Bulgaria, Wales, Montenegro, Estonia, Armenia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Albania, Georgia, Cyprus, Moldova
INTERNATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP:
Iceland, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Faroe Islands, Malta, Andorra, San Marino, Gibraltar.
So what do you think? It would allow the smaller nations opportunities for competitive games with real rewards at the end, while pushing the middle teams (notice how Wales miss out on the Elite League in this example) to do better. It would also mean less empty stadiums, more meaningful international fixtures (as opposed to endless friendlies).
Feedback! Is it pie in the sky, or the answer to UEFA's bloated membership?
0
Comments
The World Cup and European Championships are old hat now.
It's time for the elite nations to move forward.
It would be better. Rather than wasting time with tedious two-year long qualifying stages, and then getting to international competitions and playing teams like Slovenia and Togo, they may as well just create something with the core nations of the best football. The selection of Qatar as the World Cup host was the final straw for me. FIFA has outlived its usefulness. Same goes with UEFA
How utterly ridiculous, arrogant and elitist. If that idea were adopted, Denmark or Greece would never have won the European Championships. England are rubbish, so why would they be included anyway? Have a word with yourself.
Whenever I open a thread with a title like this one I just know I'm going to read something daft written by someone who is being serious and thinks they understand the topic being discussed
Sure enough........
Indeed, and that is what I was trying to address with my format in my OP, before Barry came along and shat all over my thread. Smaller teams will be able to have improvement rewarded by being promoted to the higher tiers, and bigger teams will have their complacency and competitiveness challenged by the threat of relegation. Throwing in a post-season event for them to aim for as well, akin to qualifying for the playoffs in Rugby League, will add to the impetus.
Denmark and Greece could still compete in the UEFA Euros. I'm talking about the elite so of course it's elitist. As for England, the Premier League is one of the world's major leagues. That's why they are included. Teams like Brondby and AEK don't count. Screw them.
You lack vision. Football needs to be bold. It needs to be elite. I have gone beyond the topic being discussed to a revolutionary new plan. Football's future. This is the blueprint
Players shouldn't be deprived from playing at the highest level, because of where they were born or which country they play in.
Another great thing about football is the variety of opponents, it would become as boring as cricket if you were just playing the same teams over and over.
Your idea is utter nonsense, if you like elitism so much may I suggest you take an interest in American sports, which fits all of your criteria.
The pyramid would still be there. But the most famous and popular English clubs would be invited into the Elite Super League, to replace the Champions League. Cricket is doing fine. People will pay to see England vs Australia over and over again. No one would care about Australia vs San Marino, or England vs Burkina Faso.
The idea is great. It's spectacular. It's revolutionary.
So, in that case, then, why don't every other country that plays in international football that you haven't mentioned just disband their FA's and not bother playing anymore? They might as well do that if something like this was introduced, because there is no incentive for them to even compete.
Also, who knows who is going to have a chance of winning a World Cup in a few years time? Of course, the traditional top nations will always be there, but others are improving, for example African countries. A tournament like the one you suggest would prevent them from developing further.
Every club or country should have a chance of reaching the top, they should not be deprived of that chance.
Cricket is exactly the kind of closed shop you want, an elite group of countries and counties, it's boring and it wouldn't work in football.
What I would like is mandatory friendles where you play a team within ten places of you in the rankings every so often. It would be good practice against teams our level. And prove we definitely aren't the worst team in the world! We just have miles tougher opposition than other Oceanic/Asian sides.
You're more entertaining now you"ve stopped taking the subject seriously
BBB's trolling in this thread has been excellent.
The European format needs to follow suit in the sense of having bigger groups. At the moment there are 53 teams split into 9 groups. They should change to 3 groups of 10, with the top 30 seeds from Europe going into those groups, they in turn are seeded so there isn't a group with all the top teams in it. The rest 23, which would include the likes of San Marino, Kazakhstan etc can go into 2 or 3 groups themselves. You could then have a promotion and relegation type system. The bottom 3 of the top tier get relegated into the 2nd tier and the top 3 in the 2nd tier get promoted into the top tier.
I believe this will mean there will be more competitive games between the top teams, which is what we all want to see. Take England for example - the last time they played Spain or Holland in a competitive game was Euro 96 and before they played Italy at Euro 2012, it was the qualifiers for France 98. With three groups of ten England might end up with Spain and Italy in their groups, I'd rather see them go to these countries to play than in San Marino or Moldova.
With the extra games being played in these groups, you can limit the amount of friendlies also, which would mean the national team would be a whole more competitive to get into.
The lesser nations would also get to play against teams of the same ability or thereabouts, hopefully in time make them better teams that can take on the bigger European teams and not get spanked 5 or 6 nil.
Apologies MeicY!!
I suggested a long time ago, that in the World Cup, the Oceania confederation needs serious attention. Most of the countries in that zone are barely inhabited islands. FIFA should create a "Pacific Islands" team, with independent FA's and individual FIFA delegates and votes, but for the purposes of the World Cup, they should play as a single team. Then along with New Zealand, be moved into a new "Asia-Pacific Confederation". Something similar could work with the Caribbean nations, as a "West Indies" team, similar to the cricket side.
As for UEFA, firstly, there are some countries who shouldn't even be in this confederation, namely Georgia, Kazahkstan, Azerjaijan, and Armenia. They are more Asian nations than European, so that gets rid of four. Israel I can understand, due to the hostility of Arab nations and security issues.
Now, some countries like the Faroes shouldn't even be individual UEFA members, because they are a possession of Denmark. Same goes for Gibraltar. That's two more cut from the confederation. Other minnows like Andorra, Luxembourg, San Marino, Malta, and Lichtenstein are way too small to be given national team status. They should have a status more akin to Monaco, who play as a club side in the French league. Those countries could easily join the Spanish, Dutch, Italian and German leagues as lower level club sides, open to signing anyone of any nationality like any other football club.
That leaves 45 UEFA members with national team status who can participate in international qualification tournaments. There should be a pre-qualifying stage, to determine which of the weakest teams make it through to the main stage where the stronger nations enter.
I no you shouldnt signal out the like of San Marino, but can you imagine what there players must feel every game, rather than them being inspiried into winning, it must be, well how many can we reduce the defeat to tonight.
Someone on UEFA reads Digital Spy
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/10/uefa-internationals-nations-league-friendlies